21st September 2012, 01:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 21st September 2012, 01:14 PM by Jack.)
John Wells Wrote:The image is only intended to illustrate the resolution of our thermal images and I thought that a human body (mine is now a close approximation!) was the best way to illustrated this.
..............<snip>
If you want to see the resolution of a 140 x 140 pixel thermal camera (if I remember correctly, link to paper on http://www.armadale.org.uk/phototech03.htm) have a look at this image of Villa Rustica taken by Uli Kiesow in 2006:
? archaeoflug.de 2006
Visible left and thermal right.
This is the image that made me take up kite aerial thermography, although Uli used a microlight.
Have a look at the recent kite aerial thermogram by Larry Purcell at the foot of:
http://www.armadale.org.uk/phototech06.htm
and Larry has only just started this work!
We have had our first thermal imager for a year but have done very little work. Conditions have been atrocious this year for crop marks (including thermal ones) and safe kite work.
Our Group is working in partnership with Dave Cowley of the RCAHMS to look at a Roman site in Falkirk both within and outside the visible spectrum but this project will now only take off with next season's crop.
Cooler!
Now that's impressive.
I can see great potential for commercial work in preliminary site investigation either pre-planning or for site evaluation.
One headache I've noticed in the industry is accurately showing the presence of archaeology on a development site and its extent before any topsoil is removed.
Especially on sites where there are no cropmarks, no know sites/findspots, nothing turned up from fieldwalking, the geophysical surveys failed to pick anything up and the sample trial-trenching failed to find any archaeology.......and yet archaeology is there.
Not trawled through all the links yet (thanks for posting them) but I'm guessing there is a link between how well geophysics works and how well thermal imagery (and near IR photography) works on any given site, am I understanding correctly that its linked to differential wetness? Think I read that's one of the things your studying?
What would be amazing useful in finding (and saving) archaeology is a cheap and quick technique (like kite-base photography) that can spot archaeological features in areas where cropmarks don't show up and geophysics doesn't work well.
.......just seen the last post, Will endeavor to look through the links in detail